Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 19, 2001 / 4 Teves, 5762

Diana West

Diana West
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Right is right -- RECOVERED from the rubble of Sept. 11 is an age-old truth: There is nothing intrinsically fair about being even-handed. That is, there may well be two sides to every story, but one of them is usually wrong.

This point of view, long considered overly simplistic (if not insufficiently complex), snapped into focus even before the dust of the terrorist attacks had cleared. Americans, burying their dead, knew with unshakable certainty that Osama bin Laden and his global gang were "evildoers," as President Bush almost chivalrously dubbed them, and failed to flinch when U.S. officials spoke with antique bluntness of "rooting them out" and even "killing" them. As President Bush said, "You're either with or you're against us" -- and that's been fine by us.

Maybe this change isn't so remarkable. After all, neutrality has got to be the first casualty in an attack. (Unless, of course, you're a Brit journalist of the loquacious left, like the Independent's Robert Fisk, who needed 2,500 words to describe his own very bloody, very near-death experience at the hands of an Afghan mob as a well-deserved act of retribution against the West. But his, so far, is an exception.) What's more astonishing in our age of cultural relativism and reflexive political correction is that this newfound perspective has not only held steady, but it has grown sharper and more widespread.

A clarity now extends to such blurry bastions of moral equivalence as the State Department and the European Union, taking in not only the war in Afghanistan, but, mirabile dictu, the war in the Middle East. No more (at least for the time being) do State Department spokesmen try to erase the indelible parallels between Israel's war on Hamas and America's war on Al Qaeda -- whose abandoned caves at Tora Bora, for what it's worth, are decorated with pin-ups of Palestinian militants, not Betty Grable in a burka. And no longer (for the moment, anyway) does the European Union tilt toward the Palestinians. Just last week, after the Israeli government declared that the Palestinian Authority is a "terrorist-supporting entity" amid the worst terrorist attacks in Israeli history, the European Union leaned very publicly and very heavily on Yasser Arafat. For the first time, the Europeans called on the Palestinian Authority to dismantle "Hamas' and Islamic Jihad's terrorist networks" and make "a public appeal in Arabic for an end to the armed intifada."

This demand is big stuff. While the European Union also repeated its calls on Israel to halt military actions, settlement activity and restrictions on the Palestinians, the onus of this dramatic declaration was on Arafat. Diplomatic bromides to the contrary, the European Union has effectively taken sides. As the leading backer of the Palestinian Authority, forking over $160 million annually, the European Union isn't just another bunch of bureaucrats. Its words might not be cheap.

It's beginning to look as if taking sides is in. But not everywhere. When United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week -- so richly merited, given the peace busting out all over -- he chose to portray the world as a blur of gray. Even as people the world over are divided by things as basic as the meaning of terrorism, Annan went on about the "indivisibility of humanity" -- an impressive, if meaningless, mouthful. As countries struggle in the aftermath of Sept. 11 with urgent, new questions about the demands and responsibilities of nationhood and citizenship, Annan nattered on about "today's real borders [being] not between nations, but between powerful and powerless, free and fettered, privileged and humiliated." He went on to say: "New threats make no distinction between races, nations or regions." Oh yeah? Try that one out on people who live in New York or Jerusalem. Maybe such blather is a leftover luxury of peacetime. Wartime demands the kind of consistent clarity George W. Bush has projected -- and thank goodness -- to inspire people to do what's right and stick with it. It's hard to imagine someone as completely uncentered as Bill Clinton as having been up to the task.

What happened to that late-20th-century ideal of life in a detached bubble of supposedly perfect objectivity? Looks as if it's been popped by the prick of a lapel-pin flag. Good guys and bad guys have returned, neatly side-stepping the swampy limbo of gray for the resolute action of black and white. While the future is uncertain, moral equivalence seems to have gone the way of the bustle, if not the burka -- at least for a little while.

JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.


12/17/01: Hillary strikes out
12/13/01: Lost files, lost presidency
12/10/01: Revolutionaries never grow up
12/05/01: Immigration reform talk is not just for 'haters' anymore
12/03/01: A new symbol of justice
11/30/01: Beyond morality
11/26/01: Can't keep a good man down
11/20/01: Tough talk at the United Nations
11/19/01: Hollywood's other battle
11/14/01: What's the matter with Sara Jane?
11/09/01: A beef with bin Laden's Beef Noodles
11/07/01: Facing up to the FBI's past mistakes
11/02/01: A school that teaches patriots to shutup
10/30/01: The gap between Islam and peace
10/26/01: The ties that bind (and gag)
10/24/01: This war is more than Afghanistan
10/22/01: The fatuous fatwa
10/19/01: Left out
10/16/01: Whose definition of terrorism?
10/11/01: Post-stress disorder
10/08/01: How the West has won
10/01/01: Good, bad or ... diplomacy
09/28/01: Drawing a line in stone
09/21/01: Prejudice or prudence?
09/14/01: When our dead will finally rest in hallowed ground
09/07/01: We want our #$%^&*() audience back!
08/24/01: The transformation from Green Mountain State to Green Activist State is all but complete
08/17/01: Enlightenment at Yale
08/10/01: From oppressors to victims, a metamorphosis
08/03/01: Opening the dormitory door: College romance in the New Century
08/01/01: How-To Hackdom: The dubious art of writing books about writing books
07/20/01: Hemming about Hemmings
07/13/01: Justice has not been served in the Loiuma police brutality case
06/22/01: When PC parades are too 'mainstream'
06/22/01: When "viewpoint discrimination" in our schools was not nearly so gnarly a notion
06/15/01: Lieberman flaunts mantle of perpetual aggrievement
06/07/01: Is graciousness the culprit?
06/01/01: The bright side of the Jeffords defection
05/29/01: Campus liberals should be more careful
05/18/01: 'Honest Bill' Clinton and other Ratheresian Logic
05/11/01: Dodging balls, Bugs, and 'brilliance'
05/04/01: Foot in mouth disease and little lost Tories
04/20/01:The last classic Clinton cover-up
04/20/01: D-Day, Schmee-Day
04/06/01: For heaven's sake, a little decency!
03/30/01: The sweet sound of slamming doors and clucking feminists
03/23/01: America's magazines and the 'ick-factor'
03/09/01: Felony neglect
03/02/01: Who's sorry now?
02/23/01: 'Ecumenical niceness' and other latter-day American gifts to the world
02/16/01: Elton and Eminem: Royal dirge-icist meets violent fantasist
02/12/01: If only ...

© 2001, Diana West